Blog

by Steve Risner

[This post is part of a series. The previous one is here, and the next one is here.]

This is blog post #3 in a series responding to “Ten Theological Questions No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer” by Tyler Francke. I would suggest taking a look at those previous blog posts before getting into this one. You can find them here and here. I’m working through these slowly to allow you, the reader, to determine if he has inconsistencies in his logic and position. Near the end of Tyler’s introduction, he makes reference to several blog posts he’s written on theological issues for what he terms “young-earth creationism” which, as I’ve stated previously, is a misnomer. I find it interesting that some consider 6000 years to not be ancient. The first portion of his first link will be my goal for today’s post.

By following the first link, we find “3 Seriously Bad Theological Implications for Creationism” where he begins with saying there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for single common ancestry from every field of science. That has nothing to do with my theology, but it’s a false statement. In fact, I can say with confidence with A. E. Wilder-Smith that the natural sciences know nothing of evolution. Moving on, we find he moves to theology… oh, wait. No. He brings up impact craters, which are not a theological topic. He claims God must be a liar because of impact craters and names the Vredefort crater as evidence of God’s deception. There are allegedly over 170 “confirmed” impact craters around the globe. If you study these slam dunks for an old earth, you’ll find more questions than answers and more assumptions than you can count. There are a large number of specialists in this field that disagree with the interpretation of, in this case, Tyler and those he may agree with. In short, I reject this entire argument of God being a liar simply because Tyler sees an alleged scientific argument against a clear reading of Scripture. It seems to me Tyler has, as many have done, decided that the ever changing, currently popular ideas of men with incomplete knowledge trump the Word of God. This is a terrible error to make. You can read some on a Biblical creationist interpretation of these features here. As is stated on the page linked there, this is not just one possible explanation. There are many, and to suggest anyone has the exact or perfect answer to what these features are or what they mean is far too arrogant for me to presume. Tyler further expounds on the deception of God, all the while assuming he knows exactly what we’re looking at here. To think that your interpretation of the natural features we see is the only one possible and then to assume God must have intended for us to view them as you do is just a strange idea to me. The case for God being a liar is an awful one. It’s similar to the “God made the earth to appear old” argument, which again is an awful argument. You can read a little on that here and here.

He also includes the term “Christian smart people” to describe those who agree with him. That’s actually funny to me, but also a little sad. Many of the greatest minds in science were Biblical creationists. Were they not “Christian smart people”? He must be joking. He lists several things that have been well explained by Biblical creationists for years—some for decades I believe. When the evidence is explainable by both parties, it probably shouldn’t be used by either as strongly supporting their position. He mentions radiometric dating, tree rings, ice cores, genetics, plate tectonics, and starlight as creating issues for “young-earth creationists.” You can get a short list of issues with radiometric dating here. You can read about ice layering here. You can touch on tree rings here. I didn’t realize some thought plate tectonics was a problem for the Bible-believing creationist, but you can read about that here. Concerning Y-chromosomal ancestry, you can look here. The starlight problem (which old earth proponents and Biblical creationists share) has had several proposals. I’m surprised to see he brings it up knowing this. Dr. Russel Humphreys has written an amazing model for this, as has Dr. Jason Lisle. Others have attacked this issue as well. No one that I’m aware of has offered a solution for the old earth models. That’s intriguing since they’ve got problems of their own. Most of those links are from the Institute for Creation Research. You can find other excellent articles there and at other sites as well. I wonder if these “problems” Tyler focuses on are really problems or if they’re intended to give an image to his readers. They really aren’t problems for Biblical creationists at all. In fact, many of these alleged problems have been incorporated into the “young earth model.” But when you know your “evidence” won’t be scrutinized, you can say anything you like.

He then ends this particular “theological implication” (which is exclusively based on an anti-biblical interpretation of scientific evidence) by saying, “Speaking as a Christian, I think these facts are pretty overwhelming.” It’s odd to make a statement about science when he’s “speaking as a Christian” and not a scientist or even a Christian scientist (not the Mary Baker Eddy type). He then made a very revealing statement: “And I decided it made a lot more sense to believe in a God who first revealed himself in a document meant to convey theological — not scientific or historical — truth, rather than a God who told the literal truth in Genesis but lied in creation.” Again, he’s making absurd statements, arrogantly assuming he knows how to read nature. Nature, truly, reveals the God of the Bible. But the Bible does that as well. Nature is much harder to read, while the Bible is a fairly clear communication intended to give us specific information. Which should be the looking glass by which we read the other? He’s actually implying here that God inspired the writers of the Bible to give us inaccurate information to convey truth to us. In essence, he says God must have lied with nature and that’s bad but also lied in the Bible and that’s good. I hope the inconsistency is as glaring to you as I feel it is.

Next week, we will tackle the other two “theologically bad implications” that Tyler claims Biblical creationists have. I’m hoping we can find some theology in those, since I didn’t really find any in the first problem he mentioned. Stay tuned and stay focused. Be sure to not get caught up in the humanistic/atheistic view of the evidence. Often times we just accept things like “this looks old” or “the earth appears to have a great age” and other matters of opinion and then try to argue from there. The fact is, these opinions are based on the preconceived notion that the earth NEEDS to be old in order for Big Bang cosmology and Darwinism to work (which is funny because no amount of time could produce either).

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.